Snowflakes Spotted on Campus
- Thread starter The SHUttle
- Start date
......
btw, you're wrong.
Average increase in national debt under the previous 5 presidents
Reagan - Increase of 23% per year
Bush 1 - Increase of 14% per year
Clinton - Increase of 4% per year
Bush 2 - Increase of 13% per year
Obama - Increase of 9% per year.
Posting facts on this thread - this flaming pit of human stupidity and hypocrisy - has been meaningless from the beginning.
I agree with you on your view about the softening of society, but silly comments like these certainly don't help your case as they reduce your credibility.
In fact, it's exactly what's wrong with political discourse these days. I am always amazed how people get caught up in dumb name calling political pot shots like this. They serve no purpose other than to inflame and divide. The fact is, politicians in both parties have good and bad ideas. It would be so much better if people would think for themselves instead of aligning with the "left" or the "right." Neither side has a monopoly on good or bad ideas and reasonable people who can keep an open mind and see all sides are what we need more of. Not cheap stupid stuff like this.
By Dollar:
Donald Trump: As projected in the FY 2019 budget, Trump plans to add $4.775 trillion, a 29-percent increase from the $20.245 trillion debt at the end of Obama's last budget for FY 2017.
FY 2021 - $1.119 trillion.
FY 2020 - $1.198 trillion.
FY 2019 - $1.225 trillion.
FY 2018 - $1.233 trillion.
Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion, a 74-percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.
FY 2017 - $672 billion.
FY 2016 - $1.423 trillion.
FY 2015 - $327 billion.
FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
FY 2013 - $672 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
FY 2009 - $253 billion. Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.
George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101-percent increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.
FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. This was Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act.
FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
FY 2007 - $501 billion.
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.
Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32-percent increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush's last budget, FY 1993.
FY 2001 - $133 billion.
FY 2000 - $18 billion.
FY 1999 - $130 billion.
FY 1998 - $113 billion.
FY 1997 - $188 billion.
FY 1996 - $251 billion.
FY 1995 - $281 billion.
FY 1994 - $281 billion.
George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54-percent increase from the $2.857 trillion debt at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.
FY 1993 - $347 billion.
FY 1992 - $399 billion.
FY 1991 - $432 billion.
FY 1990 - $376 billion.
Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186-percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.
FY 1989 - $255 billion.
FY 1988 - $252 billion.
FY 1987 - $225 billion.
FY 1986 - $297 billion.
FY 1985 - $256 billion.
FY 1984 - $195 billion.
FY 1983 - $235 billion.
FY 1982 - $144 billion.
The debt isn't something you can blame on one individual political actor or even a political party as political parties tend to drastically change over a shorter term than the debt was created. I tend to blame it on the voters in a society who year after year vote in favor of politicians who want to cut taxes for the rich without decreasing spending, who start trillion dollar wars for no reason and who add government programs with no way of paying for them.
The same voters who voted for the debt have the balls to come on here and criticize the younger generation - like me - who are left with their mess. Amazing
The same voters who voted for the debt have the balls to come on here and criticize the younger generation - like me - who are left with their mess. Amazing
Last edited:
You may not be aware but the "rich" as you refer to them as, pay 40% of the entire tax bill. That's the 1 percenters. The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the total tax and the top 25% pay 86% of the total tax revenue, so how would cutting lower income taxes help exactly? The bottem 75% pretty much don't pay tax anyway. It's just a talking point of the left who are good at 2 things, lying and spending money.
No one is blaming the millennials for the current debt. However, supporting things like socialized healthcare which will cost over 30 TRILLION to implement and increast the current debt by 150% is insane. Then you vote people like this into office;
You may not be aware but the "rich" as you refer to them as, pay 40% of the entire tax bill. That's the 1 percenters. The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the total tax and the top 25% pay 86% of the total tax revenue, so how would cutting lower income taxes help exactly? The bottem 75% pretty much don't pay tax anyway. It's just a talking point of the left who are good at 2 things, lying and spending money.
No one is blaming the millennials for the current debt. However, supporting things like socialized healthcare which will cost over 30 TRILLION to implement and increast the current debt by 150% is insane. Then you vote people like this into office;
You're much more entertaining when you're crying about a kneel.
I guess I'll humor you though - OF COURSE THE RICH PAY 70% OF THE TAXES, THEY HAVE ALL THE MONEY.
I think we've beaten up the term "snowflake", so is it okay to start a "pussyhat" thread now?
No, The Deficit Isn't 'Soaring,' And Yes, Tax Revenues Are At Record Highs
Investors Business Daily
12/11/2018
In the first two months of the new fiscal year, tax revenues are up. But so is the deficit. Why? Because spending continues to outpace revenues. So why do tax cuts keep getting blamed?
The latest monthly budget report from the Congressional Budget Office shows the deficit jumping $102 billion in just the first two months of the new fiscal year.
That sure looks like the deficit is "soaring," as one news outlet claimed. But as the CBO makes clear, almost all that deficit increase was the result of quirks of the calendar. Depending on where weekends fall, significant sums of spending can get shifted into different months.
A true apples-to-apples comparison, the CBO says, shows that the deficit climbed by just $13 billion.
So, no, the deficit is not soaring.
Nor are tax cuts to blame for the relatively small increase so far this year.
In fact, the CBO report shows that overall tax revenues climbed by $14 billion in the first two months of the year, compared with the same months last year. Which means they continue to hit new highs.
The CBO report shows that combined income and payroll taxes were the same in the first two months of the new fiscal year as they were last year. That's even though far less money was withheld from paychecks thanks to the Trump tax cuts.
It also found that corporate income taxes went up by $5 billion. That's despite the "massive corporate tax giveaway" that Democrats want to repeal.
Why are these revenues flat or up? Simple: The tax cuts help spur accelerated economic growth, which create jobs and spark income gains. More workers and higher wages mean more tax revenues. On the corporate side, a bigger economy means more profits, which even when taxed at lower rates can produce more revenue. This is exactly what advocates of Trump's pro-growth tax cuts said would happen.
Meanwhile, revenue from "other sources" climbed by $8 billion. (To be clear, at least some of that $8 billion came from the re-imposition of ObamaCare's nefarious tax on insurance premiums, which Congress had suspended the year before.)
But while revenues climbed by $14 billion, spending in the first two months of the new fiscal year climbed by $27 billion.
Where did the spending hikes come from? CBO says $8 billion was from Social Security, $5 billion from interest on the debt, $9 billion from military spending, and $4 billion from "other."
As we have said multiple times, the deficit problem is not the result of too little taxes, but too high spending. Unfortunately, Republican blew the opportunity over the past two years to rein in federal spending, particularly on entitlements.
No matter what the budget numbers actually show, it's a virtual guarantee that Democrats will blame tax cuts for the rising deficit when they take control of the House next year. And they will put relentless pressure on Trump and congressional Republicans to "compromise" on tax hikes as part of some grand budget agreement.
That's one deal Trump should never make.
Investors Business Daily
12/11/2018
In the first two months of the new fiscal year, tax revenues are up. But so is the deficit. Why? Because spending continues to outpace revenues. So why do tax cuts keep getting blamed?
The latest monthly budget report from the Congressional Budget Office shows the deficit jumping $102 billion in just the first two months of the new fiscal year.
That sure looks like the deficit is "soaring," as one news outlet claimed. But as the CBO makes clear, almost all that deficit increase was the result of quirks of the calendar. Depending on where weekends fall, significant sums of spending can get shifted into different months.
A true apples-to-apples comparison, the CBO says, shows that the deficit climbed by just $13 billion.
So, no, the deficit is not soaring.
Nor are tax cuts to blame for the relatively small increase so far this year.
In fact, the CBO report shows that overall tax revenues climbed by $14 billion in the first two months of the year, compared with the same months last year. Which means they continue to hit new highs.
The CBO report shows that combined income and payroll taxes were the same in the first two months of the new fiscal year as they were last year. That's even though far less money was withheld from paychecks thanks to the Trump tax cuts.
It also found that corporate income taxes went up by $5 billion. That's despite the "massive corporate tax giveaway" that Democrats want to repeal.
Why are these revenues flat or up? Simple: The tax cuts help spur accelerated economic growth, which create jobs and spark income gains. More workers and higher wages mean more tax revenues. On the corporate side, a bigger economy means more profits, which even when taxed at lower rates can produce more revenue. This is exactly what advocates of Trump's pro-growth tax cuts said would happen.
Meanwhile, revenue from "other sources" climbed by $8 billion. (To be clear, at least some of that $8 billion came from the re-imposition of ObamaCare's nefarious tax on insurance premiums, which Congress had suspended the year before.)
But while revenues climbed by $14 billion, spending in the first two months of the new fiscal year climbed by $27 billion.
Where did the spending hikes come from? CBO says $8 billion was from Social Security, $5 billion from interest on the debt, $9 billion from military spending, and $4 billion from "other."
As we have said multiple times, the deficit problem is not the result of too little taxes, but too high spending. Unfortunately, Republican blew the opportunity over the past two years to rein in federal spending, particularly on entitlements.
No matter what the budget numbers actually show, it's a virtual guarantee that Democrats will blame tax cuts for the rising deficit when they take control of the House next year. And they will put relentless pressure on Trump and congressional Republicans to "compromise" on tax hikes as part of some grand budget agreement.
That's one deal Trump should never make.
It's also important not to get into a class warfare argument. Most wealthy people are wealthy because they've worked hard and have been smart about saving and investing their money. Not spending out of control (like the government, ha) and racking up debt. Personal finance is something that needs to be taught in schools, IMO. So many Americans have little clue how to manage money.
One, most have earned it. 2, If they are paying 70%, then when there is a tax cut they logically should reap 70% of the reward from that cut. You do realize that the top tax bracket only went from 39.6% to 37% while the middle class tax cut went from 28%. to 24%. Here is old v new. Show me where this is unfair? Every bracket except 10% adn 35% went down.
Sorry. I haven't the slightest clue what point of mine you are even trying to counter.
If you want to have a conversation about the intricacies of the tax bill, start a new thread. This one is about bashing kids petting dogs and claiming superiority over the younger generation.
One, most have earned it. 2, If they are paying 70%, then when there is a tax cut they logically should reap 70% of the reward from that cut. You do realize that the top tax bracket only went from 39.6% to 37% while the middle class tax cut went from 28%. to 24%. Here is old v new. Show me where this is unfair? Every bracket except 10% adn 35% went down.
People who earn $157,501-$191,650 that bracket went from 28% to 32%. An increase of 4%. Meanwhile, highest earners got a 2.4% tax decrease. Then taking away SALT deductions in States like NJ, NY, California and what you have is the double whammy.
Moreover, the wealthiest earners make much of their money off income which is taxed at the capital gains level, i.e. Warren Buffett. They are actually paying 20% and not the highest bracket. Thus, they actually are taxed at a lower rate than the middle class who are mostly salaried employees. That is just one trick (albeit legal) that is used by the uber wealthy to avoid paying taxes, lest not talk about carried interest so that Hedge Fund Managers should pay less than the middle class.
Last edited:
You started the conversation in this direction...
shuvrp said: ↑
The debt isn't something you can blame on one individual political actor or even a political party as political parties tend to drastically change over a shorter term than the debt was created. I tend to blame it on the voters in a society who year after year vote in favor of politicians who want to cut taxes for the rich without decreasing spending, who start trillion dollar wars for no reason and who add government programs with no way of paying for them.
The same voters who voted for the debt have the balls to come on here and criticize the younger generation - like me - who are left with their mess. Amazing
Very weak analysis in that article. There is no evidence at all that the Trump tax cuts are increasing revenues. The data to me shows the opposite.
I took a quick look of average monthly receipts by calendar year since 1981. Only 8 years out of that span did we see a decline in average monthly revenues from the previous year usually coinciding with a recession... 2018 was one of those years.
On average tax receipts increase about 5% per year, and in 2018 through November we are down 1.5% from 2017.
October was up but that could be inclusive of 2017 tax payments which people chose to defer. I don't have a way to quantify that, but November receipts are down from 2017.
There were 3 months with receipts higher than they were in 2018 - January (prior to tax changes taking effect in payroll), April (when people pay 2017 tax bill) and October (tax extension deadline).
Every other month saw a decline in receipts from the previous year.
Not true, guy I work with girlfriend doesn't like to fly but she is mysteriously okay if the dog comes along, so she is now a therapy dog. They bought a therapy dog coat for the dog on Amazon.
I love dogs, but the whole bringing your dog everywhere and the therapy dog stuff is a little out of control.
Following up on this - December 2018 was also lower than December 2017.
Total 2018 revenue was less than 2017.
Months where revenue was up from 2017
January, April, October - Average increase = 8%
Months where revenue went down from 2017
The rest - Average monthly decrease = -4.6%
As I mentioned earlier - The "record high's" the article was referring to were related to the only 3 months where people were still paying 2017 tax rates.
Conservatively, revenues were probably around 150-200 billion lower than they would have been had we not passed a tax cut.
The tax cut is a big driver on our growing deficit / debt.
Yes, October was up over 2017.
Revenue was up every month with people filing/paying 2017 taxes and down with 2018 taxes. That's not a coincidence.
Revenue is supposed to go every year. Under Obama the average increase was about 4% and that includes 2009 where revenue decreased by 17% because of the recession.
We'll know more as time goes on... but the premise of the article you posted about record revenues under the new tax bill appears wrong.
Yes, October was up over 2017.
Revenue was up every month with people filing/paying 2017 taxes and down with 2018 taxes. That's not a coincidence.
Revenue is supposed to go every year. Under Obama the average increase was about 4% and that includes 2009 where revenue decreased by 17% because of the recession.
We'll know more as time goes on... but the premise of the article you posted about record revenues under the new tax bill appears wrong.
Why show a chart comparing 2017 to 2016, am I missing something?
Per the CBO, revenues were down $13 billion for December, that miniscule amount proves nothing. You think the poor December stock market influenced less capital gains taxes? Spending was down $25 billion though, that’s a good start.
Numbers are correct. change 16 to 17 and 17 to 18.
It's my chart. Copied the heading and forgot to change them.
1 month doesn't prove anything. I agree, which is why I looked at 12 months.
January and April tell the story the best as clearly those months were due to 2017 tax rates. When you see an increase in 5% and 12% respectively over 2017 - It is clear that revenues were on pace to increase without the tax cut.
You posted the article stating that we are seeing record revenues. That was clearly not the case and clearly was not the case throughout the year.
That 25 billion was not really a 25 billion decrease. Spending is more difficult to analyze on a monthly basis because of the timing of payments. Reading the same CBO report you read the majority of that 25 billion was due to timing and the difference was actually 6 billion.
Revenue declined 13 billion and spending declined by 6 without the timing difference.
Without the tax cut, and no changes in spending our deficit would be lower.
It's my chart. Copied the heading and forgot to change them.
1 month doesn't prove anything. I agree, which is why I looked at 12 months.
January and April tell the story the best as clearly those months were due to 2017 tax rates. When you see an increase in 5% and 12% respectively over 2017 - It is clear that revenues were on pace to increase without the tax cut.
You posted the article stating that we are seeing record revenues. That was clearly not the case and clearly was not the case throughout the year.
That 25 billion was not really a 25 billion decrease. Spending is more difficult to analyze on a monthly basis because of the timing of payments. Reading the same CBO report you read the majority of that 25 billion was due to timing and the difference was actually 6 billion.
Revenue declined 13 billion and spending declined by 6 without the timing difference.
Without the tax cut, and no changes in spending our deficit would be lower.
That article only talked about the first 2 months of FY2019 and did not project any record revenues.
Timing difference's don't only apply to spending, now do they???
And no opinion on whether there may have been lower capital gains taxes collected in Dec?
The title mentions record highs in revenue. Again, clearly not the case.
For the most part they do. A 1 day
Difference on a payment of tens of tens of billions just doesnt happen on the revenue side.
My opinion is that it seems unlikely that the poor december stock market would result in lower December revenues because people dont pay capital gains at the time of the transaction. I'd also tend to think that a lot of people would be selling off gain positions resulting in an increase in revenues when they do pay their taxes.
So there weren't record high revenues in Oct/Nov?
Same amount of business days in Dec 2017 as in Dec 2018, are you saying the government doesn't spend funds on certain days but collects revenues every day, LOL?
Mom and pops like me and you don't pay taxes at capital gains execution date but the heavy hitters do. And the level of capital gains could very well could have been less than in Dec 2017.
Having said all that, we know in the long-term revenues are not going to go up with the tax cuts. Revenues won't be as high as the tax cuts advocates say and they won't be as low as the tax cut detractors say.
Too bad we can't get back to the days of Clinton and Gingrich where federal spending was 18% of GDP. You refuse to go there or think sending is a problem.
October was up. November was down.
I made that point in december and then december came in lower as well. October was a strong month, but the analysis in that artcile failed to mention that October is when the 2017 tax extensions are due.
If there was only 1 employer paying all of the taxes, sure. But we have millions of inputs from tax revenues and there is a smoothing effect as payrolls are processed.
When we have 20% of expenses being paid on the last day of the month, when that falls on a weekend it is a significant fluctuation from the same time in the previous year. CBO acknowleges that. I'm not saying anything crazy there.
There is not much logic there. October for example saw a market decline of 10% yet Oct 18 had higher revenues than 2017. Also after a bull market, it is really hard to imagine that the heavy hitters were taking losses in december. I'm sure there was some loss, but id also bet quite a bit of a limit protecting unrealized gains.
I have no problem cutting spending and I have no problem reducing taxes for the wealthy... I just think both need to be done at the right time with the right balance.
You know having read that book I mentioned in the other thread (“I-gen”), it makes a lot of sense why we have now have therapy dogs and safe spaces.
